So in essence Mr C, you enjoy playing the trips game and seeing it play out as if you were red, blue, and green, making it a more complicated type of 1v1, just with more nuances and possibilities than a regular 1v1 (assuming the other team has a dictator as well).

Crazyirishman wrote:So in essence Mr C, you enjoy playing the trips game and seeing it play out as if you were red, blue, and green, making it a more complicated type of 1v1, just with more nuances and possibilities than a regular 1v1 (assuming the other team has a dictator as well).

I am not sure if this is the case for Mr. C, but I am curious if he would get the same feelings from playing in a '1vs1 Team Game' I.E. where say 1 person controls '3 in-game team players' and the other person controls the other '3 in-game team players.' Since this isn't yet a feature (though I keep wanting to see it!), it might be hard to gauge.

Crazyirishman wrote:So in essence Mr C, you enjoy playing the trips game and seeing it play out as if you were red, blue, and green, making it a more complicated type of 1v1, just with more nuances and possibilities than a regular 1v1 (assuming the other team has a dictator as well).

I am not sure if this is the case for Mr. C, but I am curious if he would get the same feelings from playing in a '1vs1 Team Game' I.E. where say 1 person controls '3 in-game team players' and the other person controls the other '3 in-game team players.' Since this isn't yet a feature (though I keep wanting to see it!), it might be hard to gauge.

--Andy

I would surely play that new setting if it ever arrived (personally I doubt it will), but I would always play TEAM games as they were meant to be played. I think my words have to an extent elicited the belief that I need to, or get some enjoyment from, bossing others around..or that I see my teammates as mindless machines bending to my will and almost irrelevant to the overall result.

When the simple truth is that I believe, at least for me, that the dictator model is the most effective. My team also believe that. When I play outside my team I am looking for a dictator to lead ME. I know I've written many a thread which might not be considered a reasonable representation of my views, but in this case - hand on heart - I really do believe that this model is the most effective way to play team games. Maybe not the most enjoyable for everyone (for that depends on one's character), but surely the most effective.

I often open, attack opponents next to to go or two in a critical position and reinforce my teammate as well as the options allow. I often find new players, or in some cases, very experienced players doing some weird shit.

In team games I think a basic theory of play is needed.

Hit their player to go next.Reinforce your teammate next to go.Target one of their players if possible.

That's more or less it for one team against another.

If its a multi team game, I usually just need them to stop attacking so fucking much.

I often find the most difficult concept to get across is to reinforce the next in line, don't waste troops on neutral or in general, and bonuses aren't that great if your losing troops because of them. I think everyone should have basic understanding of the settings that are being played.

It's usually easiest to get your team to target a single opponent over other strategies. This often opens up sharing of troops. On the other hand, it's often as not that a player will go rogue perhaps just because you try to lead.

We choose the games we play. In a team game there should be a team not a group of individual players. As long as the person is playing a team game, I'll leave them be. But if there is 2, 3, or 4 of us just sitting there like we fishing, I will propose a plan. and I promise you that the plan might be pure and utter shit, but if executed in a coordinated prompt fashion, it could win the game.

We also choose or offer ourselves as a choice of teammate. If we join a game with a general, most of us would probably expect to take cues from him. Equally if someone much lower in rank joins you, he should hope for some advise.

In general, I would assume my opponent has the best possible team strategy and want to put forth a better one. Regardless of leadership, it requires communication, coordination and timing. Change the name to MC and you get a + 1.

How often do players evolve into Dictators / Pirate Captains / Master Communicators? Or is it less based on gathering experience, and more based on innate personality traits possibly developed outside of CC?

I think that a better title for this thread would have been, "The Mark of a True Leader!"

While there are many leaders, there really are but few, True Leaders. The OP mentions many of the qualities of a TL but not all of them. For example; A TL must have a hunger for understanding that is never satisfied. The TL realizes that in helping others to gain more understanding, his/her own understanding is increase and with the increase understanding and knowledge so is the pleasure of the conquest as well. While at the same time realizing that it is not so much the conquest or end result but the Journey to that desired end where in the joy truly lies. Giving meaning to the saying, "I love it when a plan comes together!"

True leaders tend to dictate so as to show and to make their point. For while most of us only learn from our mistakes the TL learns from the errors of others as well as their correct plays. We see the logic and the flaws, the wisdom and the fallacy and hope that others can see it also. So we tend to push the correct way of doing things in the hopes that others can see the logic in what we know is true. But the fact is that the vast majority will not learn less they go through the process of loss first and then some never even learn from that. And yet it is difficult for the TL to see others learn from the costly errors of their own ways. And sometimes even more saddened when others can't learn from the correct example provided. A heart felt cause for discouragement in the soul of a TL.

Yet nothing in comparison to the onslaught of negative emotions brought on by those who can not at this time understand. So they target true leaders for early elimination thinking that they have out witted the TL when shear numbers of envious leader wannabees were the real cause of the TL's undoing. The price paid for being a TL is always a cross too heavy for a regular leader to bare. But the TL wears it well and carry's on.

This is why a TL may appear as a dictator to most and why the TL may even lash out at others who can not, of no fault of their own, come to that same knowledge and understanding at this point in time. This is why a TL may often get more discourage than most but the desire to increase in understanding brings the TL back each day to try again for this above all, to his own self is true. And this follows the night as the day for they are slaves to no man. For the True Leader knows that if he/she is not teaching, then they are not learning. And if they are not learning then they are not really, True Leaders.

Having continued to ruminate over this issue for no small amount of time, a question began to form in my mind. It concerns the employment of strategy at its most fundamental level and I intend to test it out over the next couple ofmonths.

So here it is:

Imagine my trips team is playing that standard, disorganized type of outfit I have been encountering on first nations NA. As the dictator I allow myself two options. In the first place, I can lead my team as usual..setting the plays from 'central command' and considering the overall strategic picture. Or, I can announce to my chaps (right from the beginning), "play as you feel best".

My theory is that with option 1, one of the three will become the dominant force (with possibly a second minor force and a third irrelevance). While in the second, all three will naturally create their own empires into the mid.game.

I checked through my previous wins and found that almost always one of the three players became an overwhelming dominant force. Interestingly, it was a fairly even split between the first and the second as to who became the dominant force, while the third incredibly rarely took on that role. That is important im itself. So it seems to me that the dictator model works in that sense.

But then just recently I played a trips game and was going through one of my disinterested periods. I had an incredibly light touch over the first 3 rounds. And what did I find when I finally paid attention to the game? All three players had created nice little empires for themselves.

So I speculate that the dictator model leads to a 'dominant player scenario', while the independent command is more likely to result in three viable empires.

From there, I naturally began to wonder if in some situations it would be optimal for the dictator to actually call for independent play for a couple of rounds, but still of course be able to dictate when he chose. But in what situations/styles/maps etc would option two be preferable?

This seems very complicated to me indeed.

I have always felt that one of the key principles of good strategy is unpredictability. I have numerous methods when I play standard or 8 man dubs...it is important to have this as well in trips and quads. So I am naturally attracted to a concept like this. For how can the opposition read my play if i am switching between a dictatorial model and an independent model within in the same game? Or maybe I play the first in a set as a dictator and the second using the independent command?

So, is one model more suitable than another in certain situations?

If i am playing a fellow dictator which should I use?If I am playing on a large, medium-sized or small map?If I am behind on round 3?If the map is bonus-driven or territory based?If the opposition has played me before?If it is a new map?If it is one I am familiar with?

Finally, what do you think of the concept of SWITCHING between models? How effective would that be?

I admittedly didn't read every post here, so I caveat what I'm about to type with that.

If the ultimate goal in a team game is to win, one would assume that teammates would look to the most skilled player to direct their actions (I believe Changy referred to points as #5 on his list of five reasons for dictators, I believe points is likely numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 as well). I digress. In the real world, if one wishes to succeed in a customer or client service line of business (for example law or accounting or engineering), one necessarily defers to those who have more experience, talent, and/or skill. This is a natural occurrence if a team wishes to be successful. For example, if I am in a meeting with a client regarding the reduction of their overall tax liability through planning in order to win work from the client, I will certainly not interject my thoughts on a tax technical item when someone with more experience, talent, and skill is in the room. We are more likely to win the work if the person with the most experience, talent, and skill talks about his or her area of expertise than if I interjected my own opinion, however valid that may be. There are likely many more examples of this phenomenon in real life.

In most CC games, I will defer to other players. I'm submissive, to borrow Mr. C's term, in CC games because my expertise in that area pales in comparison to those with whom I play games. Therefore, those of you who may be offended by Mr. C's use of certain terms, which imply a lack of assertiveness, shouldn't be. When my teammate has spent more time, energy, and intellect on the play of this game, I will defer to that teammate so that we can reach our ultimate goal of winning points. And that happens in real life too.

Perhaps the reason your "subjects" don't know what to do when you leave them to their own devices is because they don't get enough chance to think for themselves. I'm really not buying this thread as much more than misplaced ego puffing and don't find it terribly insightful. Sorry.

Of course you are well within your rights to claim my writing is not insightful. I do not doubt for a second that much of my writing on this game fails to enthuse the majority of people who read it. I accept that happily...like so many of my threads on this game I write them because I enjoy discussing Risk.

But ego-puffing? This I reject. It is a simple fact that I have led my team in a certain fashion since 2008 and am therefore qualified to write about the viability of this command structure. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with how well my teams play, it is analysing the effectiveness of various structures that can be employed for team games. That my team play is some way below the top level I have never hidden, though I continue to play team games in an effort to improve. Sadly (though perhaps inevitably) the very best players tend not to share their thoughts on strategy all that much. However, I have always believed there is value in discussing the game to improve our collective understanding and while every thread of mine in this area elicits at least one comment such as yours, you will be unsurprised to know that it doesn't affect my continuing determination to write about this game at a level beyond 'look at how many medals I got'.

I myself have enjoyed a number of your threads and appreciate the fact that you take the time to formulate your ideas on here. However... The opening post of this thread gave me the willies. Maybe it was the overall tone that started my discomfort but it was your portrayal of the other players as mere hungry objects I found most disturbing. But perhaps this is the true mark of the dictator, to view your subjects as sheep to be forever puppeted?But back to the point...If not inflated ego, delusion of grandeur? These facets of dictating that you offer, while interesting and even possibly intriguing to the right person, are not nearly as profound/complex as you suggest. Is this all not ego-related?

I myself have enjoyed a number of your threads and appreciate the fact that you take the time to formulate your ideas on here. However... The opening post of this thread gave me the willies. Maybe it was the overall tone that started my discomfort but it was your portrayal of the other players as mere hungry objects I found most disturbing. But perhaps this is the true mark of the dictator, to view your subjects as sheep to be forever puppeted?But back to the point...If not inflated ego, delusion of grandeur? These facets of dictating that you offer, while interesting and even possibly intriguing to the right person, are not nearly as profound/complex as you suggest. Is this all not ego-related?

Not to be too pithy about this, but everything is ego-related...

Secondly, while you are absolutely entitled to view my writing as facile junk, I hope you don't expect me to get into a 'my writing is SO insightful'...'oh no it isn't...' type of debate. I have no intention (for perfectly obvious reasons) of doing so. I take the risk that when I write these things people will respond negatively (assuming I don't want them to as I sometimes of course do), I happily accept that. However, I do expect you to argue your case better than you did in your first post.

So your posts are effectively personal attacks, designed to either get me into an argument or troll this thread in some fashion. You accuse me of 'delusions of grandeur' and no doubt having the ego the size of a medium-sized country. Ok. But what on earth do you expect me to write back with? How can I argue constructively against you if your post is limited to these kinds of attacks? You write that this issue is not as complex as I make out. Yet you make no attempt to justify that argument. My threads are designed (usually) to provoke debate. Your post is designed to offend. Ok, but don't imagine I will comment further unless you actually add something constructive to this thread beyond 'you have a big ego'.

In response to the OP, I've got to say that I agree. It's just that I think there are a lot more people on CC who aren't true dictators, but are a dictator from time to time.

Example: When I play a game with my clanmates on Rail Europe, quads, escalating, I kind of (in my own civilized way) demand that my ideas will be followed. This is because I'm quite certain that I have the best ideas on those settings and I win pretty much every game. But for almost every other setting, I'll be active in chat, but not dictating anyone. Simply, because I might miss something others won't and I might see things others won't. This would be your regular old discussion game, which usually goes fine as well (although with a lower win percentage).

I believe there are more specialized players here who will take a dictator-like position in a game, when they feel it is necesarry. The thrill of leading your team to victory because of the precise following of your plans is not to be underestimated. They just want to have some more relaxed games as well, where they can follow a plan and write a plan when they feel like it.

I've never played with a dictator. Or, if I have, he wasn't dictatorial in my game with him and/or I saw his commentary as "advice" and played the turn the way I thought it should be played. In truth, I've never really had an experience in which I saw one player as the dictator, because every nuance of every turn was never described by one player in any of my games. Like I said, even if it had been so, I would certainly have reserved the right to deviate from whatever plan said dictator gave me, without consulting him first. And I truly believe that that would give us the best chance of winning.

Mr Changsha wrote:But then just recently I played a trips game and was going through one of my disinterested periods. I had an incredibly light touch over the first 3 rounds. And what did I find when I finally paid attention to the game? All three players had created nice little empires for themselves.

So I speculate that the dictator model leads to a 'dominant player scenario', while the independent command is more likely to result in three viable empires.

At this point in your reasoning, an idea came to mind:

Is it possible that the historic role of your authoritarianism leads to outcomes such as the three viable empires?

For example, when you let the reins free, the players lead themselves to an outcome which might (usually) be restricted to the "three viable empires" outcome because they are used to being led by the Glorious Dictator. In other words, since they have developed within the authoritarian institution (institution = rules of the game*), they may have yet to develop a compensating/substitutable institution; therefore, they will lead themselves to this outcome.

As a contrary example, players from the "oligarchic" style in my usual games typically lend support to 1 or 2 players in a quad, and 1 (sometimes 2) in a trips. Based on our historic experiences within an oligarchic institution, we "naturally" lead ourselves into an outcome. By "oligarchic," I mean that at least two of our players make most of the shots and input most of the information, while the third and/or fourth insert significantly less feedback and tend to play a subordinate role.

With this in mind:

Mr Changsha wrote:From there, I naturally began to wonder if in some situations it would be optimal for the dictator to actually call for independent play for a couple of rounds, but still of course be able to dictate when he chose. But in what situations/styles/maps etc would option two be preferable?

This seems very complicated to me indeed.

This is complicated because regardless of the map and styles, the underlying problem is that you are flipping political institutions within one game. If the other players are not used to the significant loss of your decision-making, then within the new institution of "independent play," they may lead themselves to undesirable outcomes.

For example, in our trips game, had you explicitly called for independent play, I would have allowed the oligarchical method to flourish (however, in that game, it would've likely developed into a tripartite on relatively equal political power, i.e. authority to make shots). In turn, this may have resulted in the problem of conflicting goals without any means of adjudication because we three have yet to develop a substitutable institution which would resolve our problems and make us profitable. In other words, we may have problems because we lack the ability to self-organize for many reasons.

Because of the potential for this problem, within my oligarchical model, I implement a different form of order by attempting to play a more passive role, offer suggestions, receive feedback, and allow for the naturally occurring/spontaneous order to arise from this process. This different form of order is similar to the theory of spontaneous order, which is order that emerges not from human design but from human interaction. (It's like "unintended order," in a sense).

In conclusion, based on my previous explanations and premises up to this point, your plan of "independent play" may lead to unintended consequences and frustrated outcomes--given that your teammates have yet to accustom themselves with a more oligarchical institution or spontaneous order-style of play. The answer you seek may lie in allowing the spontaneous order to emerge from the temporarily relieved, political institution of dictatorship.

Through trial-and-error (and loss of points), your independent play method may lead to better outcomes in the long-run because the players are allowed to adjust to the new institutional framework. Within the realm of spontaneous order, they may "unintentionally" develop a new institution which would profitably compensate for the loss of your temporarily relieved dictatorial institution. The question is: as a Kirznerian entrepreneur*, are you willing to forego the short-term loss of points for the perceived gains in the long-run?

According to Israel Kirzner, the entrepreneur attempts to discover profit/point opportunities through observations of the daily world, random thought creation, trail-and-error, etc. A relevant example would be you as an entrepreneur pondering if adjusting your current style of play would increase profits/points. Profits can be measured in points but are also perceived as psychic benefits (e.g. ego-boosting, self-accomplishment, satisfaction of providing others with a more useful strategy, etc.). At the moment, you are trying to array a set of means to your ultimate end. This requires estimating the present and future costs while trying to perceive present and future benefits of each means to a proximate end.

Mr Changsha wrote:I have always felt that one of the key principles of good strategy is unpredictability. I have numerous methods when I play standard or 8 man dubs...it is important to have this as well in trips and quads. So I am naturally attracted to a concept like this. For how can the opposition read my play if i am switching between a dictatorial model and an independent model within in the same game? Or maybe I play the first in a set as a dictator and the second using the independent command?

With spontaneous order, any newly created institution may be possible, so this approach (after much trial-and-error) may allow for a highly adaptable and unpredictable team--as observed from the other team. With your team, you'll intuitively know the means which generate the ends (e.g. deceptive play, strategy A but not strategy B for this round, strategy C for that round, etc.).

But there is this problem which has riddled history. Dictatorial institutions or top-down approaches tend to destroy many of the possible avenues of discovery through spontaneous order. In other words, imposed order often overrides and ruins the benefits of spontaneous order. If you can resolve this problem while implementing a top-down/dictatorial approach, then you may be on your way to winning a Nobel Prize.

Mr Changsha wrote:So, is one model more suitable than another in certain situations?

If i am playing a fellow dictator which should I use?If I am playing on a large, medium-sized or small map?If I am behind on round 3?If the map is bonus-driven or territory based?If the opposition has played me before?If it is a new map?If it is one I am familiar with?

Finally, what do you think of the concept of SWITCHING between models? How effective would that be?

My above style of play is nascent, so it's difficult for me to precisely answer your questions...

Feedback from us may be helpful, but future knowledge is best revealed through trial-and-error and re-adjustment through time with you and your own teammates. Why?

Because the spontaneous order method allows for an increased availability of knowledge/information which is dispersed at various levels among all players in your team. Knowledge/information is dependent on the "particular circumstances of time and place." So, a priori we cannot offer you universal/precise answers which may be applicable for your future decision-making because your future decisions depend on particular circumstances. In order to allow for a more robust set of opportunities, you may have to marginally relinquish your control and over time allow for new institutions to develop, so that you and your teammates can adapt more readily to the changing circumstances.

Nevertheless, your dictatorial method may distort the incentives through which players would have otherwise offered information. In other words, if my words won't mean much--or if my words may mean much but you will do what you want anyway, then I face a non-profitable endeavor, i.e. I may as well keep quiet. Your dictatorial institution may not be allowing for this avenue that reveals more information.

Finally, there is another fundamental problem. Some portion of knowledge within each individual cannot be formalized, thus cannot be expressed explicitly through a language like English. However, this knowledge can be revealed through the "language" of prices which emerge from the interactions of individuals coordinating and conflicting with their different means and ends within any market. How can you implement a price mechanism within a game? lol i dunno. Again, here lies another path to your Nobel Prize.

To compare this to the real world, it may be similar to me asking the federal government to relinquish almost all authority and allow for the interaction of individuals and city-states to pursue various avenues of discovery based on their own incentives and exchanges of information. This competitive approach of different plans would reveal the relative costs and benefits of these plans, from which others can learn, modify, and then implement new and better plans. This very game we play and this conversation of different plans/approaches for winning is exemplary of this. Spontaneous order is all around us, for who knew that your response could lead to my particular response? I didn't; it just happened!

thegreekdog wrote:I admittedly didn't read every post here, so I caveat what I'm about to type with that.

If the ultimate goal in a team game is to win, one would assume that teammates would look to the most skilled player to direct their actions (I believe Changy referred to points as #5 on his list of five reasons for dictators, I believe points is likely numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 as well). I digress. In the real world, if one wishes to succeed in a customer or client service line of business (for example law or accounting or engineering), one necessarily defers to those who have more experience, talent, and/or skill. This is a natural occurrence if a team wishes to be successful. For example, if I am in a meeting with a client regarding the reduction of their overall tax liability through planning in order to win work from the client, I will certainly not interject my thoughts on a tax technical item when someone with more experience, talent, and skill is in the room. We are more likely to win the work if the person with the most experience, talent, and skill talks about his or her area of expertise than if I interjected my own opinion, however valid that may be. There are likely many more examples of this phenomenon in real life.

In most CC games, I will defer to other players. I'm submissive, to borrow Mr. C's term, in CC games because my expertise in that area pales in comparison to those with whom I play games. Therefore, those of you who may be offended by Mr. C's use of certain terms, which imply a lack of assertiveness, shouldn't be. When my teammate has spent more time, energy, and intellect on the play of this game, I will defer to that teammate so that we can reach our ultimate goal of winning points. And that happens in real life too.

But in some circumstances, you possess relevant knowledge which may be extremely useful for the team and which no one but you possess; however, since you feel inferior to the superior's "expertise," you'll fail to act on the incentive to disseminate such knowledge (of course, there are many other reasons/incentives too).

Mr Changsha wrote:Of course you are well within your rights to claim my writing is not insightful. I do not doubt for a second that much of my writing on this game fails to enthuse the majority of people who read it. I accept that happily...like so many of my threads on this game I write them because I enjoy discussing Risk.

But ego-puffing? This I reject. It is a simple fact that I have led my team in a certain fashion since 2008 and am therefore qualified to write about the viability of this command structure. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with how well my teams play, it is analysing the effectiveness of various structures that can be employed for team games. That my team play is some way below the top level I have never hidden, though I continue to play team games in an effort to improve. Sadly (though perhaps inevitably) the very best players tend not to share their thoughts on strategy all that much. However, I have always believed there is value in discussing the game to improve our collective understanding and while every thread of mine in this area elicits at least one comment such as yours, you will be unsurprised to know that it doesn't affect my continuing determination to write about this game at a level beyond 'look at how many medals I got'.

Another interesting aspect to all this is the extent to which the dictator should have a superiority with regards to strategy over his teammates. In general, you will find dictators playing with players of obviously less experience or accomplishment. This of course makes sense, for as this thread has without doubt shown, players with a keen regard for their own strategic talents are often not willing (though I must say I personally have no problem with it) to follow orders in game after 'grinding' game.

So the dictator model without question has this weakness. When I face a new map (Japan) an extremely high quality team and an opening to consider I am alone in trying to formulate a plan. Other teams have three quality individuals analysing the play. Yet dictators accept this inherent weakness to maximize the coordination of the team's play. I know that sometimes I have won games where my strategy may actually have been flawed, but my ability to move troops and set deploys so that three armies are really and truly just one..has won the day.

This thread has actually inspired me to consider more carefully how my teams operate. Should I have more confidence in my teammates to think strategically? Should I try to add in more experienced players (bigballinstalin is beginning to feature on my roster)? Can I relax my grip on strategy to an extent? Yet can I still keep the ability to DICTATE when I so choose? If my team is given more freedom to play as they see, will they accept orders later? Might I destroy my team by granting more autonomy?

This thread has taught me that the dictator model in of itself is not ideal. What I achieve in superb coordination I lose in that I am but one man, sometimes I am disinterested for a day or two, sometimes I do make mistakes that cost games. So i have decided to experiment with still dictating round 1 (as I am convinced of the value of a fully coordinated opening), but then leaving my team to play independently from then on...and only dictating if I am absolutely convinced I must.

However, I still reserve the right to dictate. I believe there are times when teams need central control and I am not giving up that right. But I intend to do it far less and am interested to see how my team plays under these new conditions.

thegreekdog wrote:I admittedly didn't read every post here, so I caveat what I'm about to type with that.

If the ultimate goal in a team game is to win, one would assume that teammates would look to the most skilled player to direct their actions (I believe Changy referred to points as #5 on his list of five reasons for dictators, I believe points is likely numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 as well). I digress. In the real world, if one wishes to succeed in a customer or client service line of business (for example law or accounting or engineering), one necessarily defers to those who have more experience, talent, and/or skill. This is a natural occurrence if a team wishes to be successful. For example, if I am in a meeting with a client regarding the reduction of their overall tax liability through planning in order to win work from the client, I will certainly not interject my thoughts on a tax technical item when someone with more experience, talent, and skill is in the room. We are more likely to win the work if the person with the most experience, talent, and skill talks about his or her area of expertise than if I interjected my own opinion, however valid that may be. There are likely many more examples of this phenomenon in real life.

In most CC games, I will defer to other players. I'm submissive, to borrow Mr. C's term, in CC games because my expertise in that area pales in comparison to those with whom I play games. Therefore, those of you who may be offended by Mr. C's use of certain terms, which imply a lack of assertiveness, shouldn't be. When my teammate has spent more time, energy, and intellect on the play of this game, I will defer to that teammate so that we can reach our ultimate goal of winning points. And that happens in real life too.

But in some circumstances, you possess relevant knowledge which may be extremely useful for the team and which no one but you possess; however, since you feel inferior to the superior's "expertise," you'll fail to act on the incentive to disseminate such knowledge (of course, there are many other reasons/incentives too).

Given the number of maps and types of gameplay, does this phenomen that you describe happen often? Will there be three players (including one dictator) all of whom have expertise on Waterloo, trips, freestyle, trench, flat rate?

I'm sure you have more experience in this regard, but when I have participated in clan war-type games, the "home" team picks its maps and setting primarily on what maps and settings its players have expertise with. And this tends to be one player having an expertise and the other players joining along. Now, you may have had different experiences than me and there are certainly other considerations (e.g. gameplay restrictions; pairing effective teammates). But I think if it's acknowledged that I am the expert on the Waterloo map, I'm going to be on the team that plays the Waterloo map, and I'm probably going to be the dictator.

Back again with some thoughts to add. But first let us consider the objective of Team Games? As I see it, the purpose for a team game is to create a superior mind than what one could create himself. Just as four or six pairs of eyes will see more than just two so also can two or more linked minds be more creative and powerful when link into a single unifying purpose. The problem is that human beings/minds, just don't link naturally. For example the concept of sacrificing oneself for the good of the team is something that is simply hard to do among humans. It is something that is learned and approached from a history of seeing the effects in others. It does not come naturally to us to sacrifice ourselves for the good of the whole and neither does playing in team games. This has to be learned.

Team games also do not exclude the need for a Dictator but requires them in the creation of this "Super Mind." In the example given where the "Trips" are permitted independent play that form three empires the lost is not just the power that can be achieved from the three focusing all of their troops strength and power on one of the players to be their point of contact man but the lost of the "Super Mind" as well as they are not thinking as much for the whole team but for themselves. Ultimately this type of mind set loses more often than wins, generally speaking. At least I would think so.

In a doubles game that I am currently playing on the Atlantis Map my Doubles Team is now bringing the game to a win but the way it was done was by implementing a strategy that just does not come naturally to most. I became less and less so that my team mate could become more and more. (It may sound crazy and probably appear crazy to some but as long as we win the game I don't really care how crazy it may seem.) The sacrifice of myself permitted my partner to gain an early income in troops that is more then all of the rest of the players including myself, put together. As a result my team established A BZ (Bonus Zone) in Round 04 and now we have several and the opposing team still has none and never did.

In team games, it matters not how many numbers, I absolutely hate being the last to play. This is because if I play first then I can generally start the ball rolling in the general direction that I want the game to go. I often will drop and fort to the player [directly] after me with the best position and encourage the rest of the team to do likewise. In this brand of Strategy which we shall here by call the TPM (The Point Man) strategy I try to rally everyone behind the player who is in the best position (other than myself) to go for the scraping run attack in an area heavily populated by opposing forces. In games where I don't go first and have no time to make any input, what I mostly see is the first player, playing for himself carding and fortifying to another player indiscriminately. This is the individual play that comes naturally to us even in a team game. We don't naturally think about the over all position of the team but of our own position in the team.

The Dictator knows that the way that people naturally play is weak and so directs the action to a more stronger plan. Every team game has such a person but where we call this person "The Dictator" others refer to him as Team Coach or Team Captain. If this was a football game, we would all obey the instructions of the football captain without question, but here in CC we have no such thing and no playbook for the team captain to base his decisions on. Otherwise it would not be such a daunting task to be, "Dictator!" Everyone loves to blame some one other then themselves and this shy's away many from approaching the position of Dictator.

In the end, the finest of "Super Minds" is created when all the players, on an equal level, are contributing ideas to the success of the team and not their own success in the team. The "Dictator" knows however that the truly superior mind can not be achieve or is rarely achievable among players who can not see past the numbers of their own troops strength statistics. (Everyone wants to be the superstar.) The only recourse that the Dictator really has at his disposal is to form at the very least just one team mind rather than to allow three separate minds who will most likely form three separate empires. "United We Stand, Divided We Fall!"

When the choice is three regular empires with three separate minds behind each or one team and one mind out of three even if not a "Super Mind," then the team with the one mind, even if not a "Super Mind" will ultimately win the game with just the one solid empire and one solid team mind set behind it. It matters not how this is achieved, either willingly or by deception and coercion, only that it is achieved and that is why the Dictator is an integral part of the team and what really determines who wins and who loses.

checked through my previous wins and found that almost always one of the three players became an overwhelming dominant force. Interestingly, it was a fairly even split between the first and the second as to who became the dominant force, while the third incredibly rarely took on that role. That is important in itself. So it seems to me that the dictator model works in that sense.

I tend to disagree with this. A true dictator who finds himself much more often dominant than the others is playing his own pieces and missing his teammates'. It is the dice and the drop that decide which of the teammates' positions should be "dominant". The dictator in your model should find a random spread among his three with no significant tendency towards his own pieces being dominant or else he is not playing objectively and optimally. You shouldn't be dropping the aces out of player B's hand just so you can play the jacks in player A's hand when you are A. If you play optimally, then you should not (in your mind) HAVE the "A" hand. I always kept playing in team games when "my" pieces had all died, and I didn't have pieces to personally move from my account during most team games. I'm certain you don't stop when "your" pieces are gone. Unless your 3rd is truly an awful player (which is the antithesis of the model you propose- all must be very good even when not in the "dictator" role.), then the tide of the games should be determined much more by the drops, cards, and dice than by the quality of each teammate's individual turns which should be consistently high. My point, therefore, is that if your pieces were most often dominant, then in optimally played games it represents your random dominance, not a principal or pattern "important in itself"

On a separate note, in so absolutely a dictatorial model to keep your most frequent teammates in a finely tuned team at their sharpest, most interested, most invested, and most entertained - I would submit that a minority percentage of your games should formally rotate #'s 2, 3, and (if there is a 4th) 4 into the role of dictator and rotate yourself, infrequently but surely, into the role of 4th. I believe that in the long term this would also improve, not decrease, the overall point/percentage wins advantage for that specific team. #3 might dictate 5% or 10% of the time and #2 10% or 20% of the time. I do not know which mix would be optimal, but some degree of rotation I suspect would have multidimensional benefits. Again, I do not mean rotation within or during an individual game, but between games with the dictator who begins a game remaining so throughout the duration. Also, I get that the usual dictator might tend to gather more sway from his position in his off-top games, but the benefits still accrue. A CEO must be very smart, that's a sine-qua-non. However, the best CEO is the one who best utilizes his resources even when they are very much smarter than he(or she). The above applies to the use of the dictatorial model. I think it one best suited to a team with one strategist who is obviously head-and-shoulders above his team-mates. It is the communication of a clear strategy that has been proposed and can be seen by all to be optimal that should dictate what is best to do. When that is accomplished, it doesn't matter which accomplished it. The proof in this pudding is that I think a dictator-general with 2 majors will tend to beat a lone general controlling all three accounts on his team given essentially equivalent generals.These are my thoughts. I didn't read the entire thread, I didn't have time which is why I wrote such a long post instead of a short one (brevity being the soul of wit). So forgive me if it was already addressed. I am not as adamant about them as perhaps it sounds and would defer to your 4 years of experience using that model. (LOL, perhaps you would then jump upon my disclaimer itself as proof that I really agree with the basic premise of your model, but just consider and comment upon my points first).

Finally, I followed a friend's posts to this forum. The points have incisiveness to them and so grabbed my attention. However, I'm not "supposed" to be playing CC and doing THIS, strategizing in these forums, is just as much playing as actually being in a game. I greatly miss and regret not playing with you, Cat and Mac and many of you from the SoC.[/quote]

Remember the Pelops games with Blitz? I wonder how much of a dictator-top method they employed. Josko may employ a similar style in his games. In most of my team games, we employ a committee-type leadership model. In the games I've played in the past with a dictator-style leader, our record wasn't all that great, but perhaps I just haven't found the right dictator yet. =)

A Committee-type leadership model is the way to create a sort of "Unified mind." That would be a team where all of the members are actively giving feed back on a nearly constant basis and the Player who's turn it is would decide on his turn for his turn, which course of action to take after much deliberation with in the 24 hour time limit of course. That would provide for the best play possible without a Dictator. But I still believe that a Dictator or Team Captain making the calls is better still.

The problem as I see it from my limited experience in team games, players don't like to talk much. Especially when they don't even know each other or are playing for the first time. Some even seem to want to play on a "Read my mind" or "Non communication" approach. On the other hand, I have even had it mentioned to me from some where they like to play with so and so because they already know each others thoughts and how they play??? This to me denies the "Super-mind" onset. No matter how well your eyes see if both are looking in the same direction then they are missing out on something. The point of the "Super-mind" is for one to look this way and the other to look the other way. This takes communication. And someone (the Dictator), is the one who says, "You look that way and I will watch this way."

But I absolutely agree that if all the players in the team are providing active feedback on every turn then that is the best way to go. The Committee-type model does create a powerful "Super-mind" but even so, the need for one team captain to call the play based upon all that feedback would in my opinion be the absolute best way to go. If the play is based on votes by committee or letting the individual decide on his turn from all the feedback, then something is being lost in the way of the creation of a "Super-mind." It would be a powerful mind but not the best. At least I think so.